On this week’s episode of Too Embarrassed to Ask, NYU professor and “The Four” author Scott Galloway answers questions from Kara Swisher and listeners about how Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Tesla and other tech leaders are faring in an era of techlash. Galloway says many of these businesses, despite good intentions, have too much power and should be broken up.
You can read a write-up of the interview here or listen to the whole thing in the audio player above. Below, we’ve posted a lightly edited complete transcript of their conversation.
Kara Swisher: Hi, I’m Kara Swisher, executive editor at Recode, and you’re listening to Too Embarrassed to Ask coming to you from the Vox Media podcast network. This is a show where we answer all of your embarrassing questions about consumer tech and this week’s news. You can send us your questions on Twitter with the #tooembarrassed. We also have an email address, firstname.lastname@example.org. Reminder, there are two Rs and two Ss in embarrassed, in case you cannot spell.
Today on Too Embarrassed To Ask, I’m delighted to be in the studio with NYU professor Scott Galloway, who is a favorite of mine and also the podcast. Very popular. I don’t know if you know this, you’re one of the more popular podcasts.
Scott Galloway: Thank you.
Because you’re prescient, apparently. He’s the author of “The Four:” — recent book — “The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google,” which we’ve talked about in the past. This is his third time on the Recode podcast. He’s been on my other show Recode Decode twice, including one time where he famously predicted Amazon would buy Whole Foods and then they did it.
Scott, welcome to Too Embarrassed to Ask.
We have a lot of questions from people who are distrustful of The Four and other big tech companies. But I just want to ... Since we talked and since the book came out, give me some of your thoughts about what’s going on, because so much has happened: The Facebook hearings in Congress, Google announced a whole bunch of new stuff, Apple is doubling down, I got Tim Cook to talk about privacy ...
That was huge.
Then obviously the trillion dollar Apple, so there’s a lot stuff, and Amazon, everything it does. So just give me a quick synopsis and then we’ll get to questions, because we have a million questions from people for you.
So just in the time ... Publishing is in what I’ll call the epicenter of innovation and there’s a lag between when you write something and when it’s published. When I was writing this the general feedback from the publisher was, “This is great and we want to protect your voice, but is this really going to happen? It seems like you’re being a little out of control around the threat these companies present.” And the worm is turned. If you just look at where we were two years ago, the only argument was which CEO was more Christ-like or going to run for president. It was a love fest. Now everyone’s kind of ...
We’ll get to Elon Musk in a second.
There you go. Now everyone’s piling on. I would say just the sentiment has changed dramatically. But what’s interesting is from a business standpoint, no one cares. So Facebook appears to be negligent in terms of putting in place the safeguards to ensure the ...
The platform is safe.
... to ensure that it’s not weaponized. Everyone’s outraged. Where do they go to express their outrage? Facebook and Instagram. A conservative commentator mocks a 17 year old, which is a terrible thing, she loses a third of her advertisers. Within seven days, Facebook undermines the democracy and Pep Boys and Playboy say they’ve had enough, seven of the five million advertisers. Facebook right now is probably one of the cheapest stocks in tech. It’s trading at a forward multiple of 20. The S&P trades at 17, but Facebook’s scoring 49 percent a year ...
... versus 6 percent. It doesn’t appear that anyone that matters from a business standpoint cares about this, specifically advertisers and consumers don’t really seem to care.
Right and the same thing around privacy. I just had Antonio García-Martínez talk about that with Facebook, especially people don’t care about privacy the way maybe Congress cares — or faux cares — about it, and citizens don’t.
Talking about privacy is like putting on mom jeans, it just makes you look old. Show me someone complaining about privacy, I’ll show you someone who’s over the age of 40 and is in Brussels or D.C.
Well Tim Cook, yeah.
That is shareholder driven.
I generally believe that’s principle, but that would be like Larry and Sergey all of a sudden becoming very concerned that kids are spending too much time on screens.
There’s a shareholder-driven rationale for them saying that privacy matters. I’m sure it’s principle, but it foots to shareholder value.
So going forward with The Four, what are the themes now then, from your perspective? You had certain themes and all of them had a different DNA.
Yeah, different instinct.
What are the themes now since you’ve written that?
I still think they’re as powerful as ever. The major theme that I would argue that’s been one of the true absolutes in history is that power corrupts. I believe these firms have too much power. They’re not bad people, but history is littered with terrible events started by people who started out good people but had too much power. If you buy into the American way you buy into checks and balances. We’re going to have to endure Trump for a maximum of six years, Putin will be dead in 10 to 20. Mark Zuckerberg could be around for 70 years. CalSTRS called him a dictator. I think that’s being unfair to dictators. Most of them are going to go away.
He’s staying there.
I think the theme really is power corrupts and that we’re at a natural point of the economic cycle where the marketplace needs to be oxygenated and we need to break them up.
So we’re going to talk about that, but first let’s get some questions. We’ve got a ton of them.
Tracey Follows asks — I’m going to go through them and then we’re going to go back and forth and talk about different things. “As biometric data starts to augment and perhaps even replace behavioral data, how will GAFA” — I guess that’s Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, GAFA — “convince us they have a code of conduct in place responsible enough to look after such highly personal, individual and sensitive data? It’s not like they have covered themselves so far in glory.”
Well, they won’t.
But advertisers and consumers won’t care. Look, consumers talk a big game about supply-chain ethics, but they want that little black dress for $9.99 and they want their espresso pods within 48 hours, so the revolution is not going to be consumer-led. Just as the NRA could never connect assault weapon sales with mass shootings of children and tobacco could never make the connection between tobacco and cancer ...
That’s a really good point.
Facebook is never going to make the connection between unfettered content and advertisers, and shareholder value, and the future of our democracy. They’re never going to make that connection. And you know what? It’s not their job. It’s our job to elect people who make those connections, and regulate them, and hold them to the same standards that we hold every other company.
So who’s at fault here? It’s us, Kara. It’s the man in the mirror, the woman in the mirror, it’s the citizenry. We have to elect people that hold them accountable. A better business model for a manufacturer, a much better business model for General Motors and its employees and its shareholders would be if they could pour their mercury into the river. It’s a better business model.
Right, and we stopped them.
And we said, “No, you’re now liable for that mercury,” and we regulated them. For some reason we continue ...
Or seat belts, or tobacco.
Whatever it might be, or two pilots in a cockpit, right?
Whatever it is that we have decided that with most industries a certain amount of regulatory intervention or trust-busting is warranted. For some reason with these guys our leaders don’t have the domain expertise ....
Well, talk about that, talk about the hearings. You do them all. I watched every bit of ...
Right, they were fascinating. Do you think he looked like Data? Someone just told me you look like Data.
That’s an interesting one. I think he looks so young. But the 600 communications professionals at Facebook — they have 600 of them — did their job. They played us in Congress perfectly. They employed the oldest strategy in sports and burned the clock. They noticed the glitch in the matrix was they were stupid enough that all these megalomaniacs didn’t get in a room and say, “Does anyone here understand technology?”
Maybe the representative, Lisa, said, “Yeah, I get technology.” “Okay, Lisa, we’re going to give you 10 minutes and we’re going to take Bob’s five minutes away.” But they were too ego-driven to do that. They realized the glitch in the matrix and they said, “If you look at it ...” and I wrote this all down, repeat the question slowly, State Senator, repeat that it’s an important question, one of eight different talking points, and if they ask a follow-up question that’s more probing say, “This is an important question, I need to get back to you.” Four, three, two, one, gavel drops, next question.
Right, it’s too short.
They literally employed burning the clock. It was Facebook one, the U.S. and Congress zero. It demonstrated that the lack of domain expertise and will in Washington means absolutely nothing constructive is going to come out of D.C.
It’s astonishing. One of the things ... Someone was like, “Oh, he did well.” I said, “He didn’t do well. They did badly.” He did well for the way they set it up.
It was remarkably unremarkable. They managed to say nothing over and over every five minutes.
What would be really fun in the hearings in front of Parliament in the U.K., that’s the event you want to cover.
Yeah, because they’re a little savvier. They’re going to let them ask the questions.
Yeah, and if someone actually sounds like they know what they’re talking about they’re going to say, “I yield my time to you.” They’re not going to let them get away with this burning the clock business.
To me, what was the most striking example of that, Orrin Hatch not knowing what they did, or ...?
Oh, my Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson. “When I tell my friends I like chocolate I get ads for chocolate. What if I don’t want them?” They came across as so clueless. Also, I think they still are infected with that deference. Why would they [defer] to him other than he’s a billionaire? I don’t get it. I think they would have gone ... If there had been a 55-year-old who was only worth $10 million they wouldn’t have been deferential. But we now worship at the altar of youth and billionaires, and he’s both those things.
Right, right, right, and they did handle with the kid gloves, it was astonishing. It was kind of fascinating in terms ...
I’m curious to get your take. I thought they absolutely got played.
I thought they got played. I think the obsession with terms of service, as if it was the biggest national security that you can read ... terms of service, I was like, “Who cares? ‘What happened?’ is what I would like to know. Why did you ...” There’s so many questions. Why was nobody fired? How did Cambridge Analytica slip through, because I know you guys do monitor companies that do have your data, and I know you can chase them down, and I know you do chase them down. Why didn’t they get chased? How did the system go into place? Who was monitoring the platform? Were those people not there? What happened to the platform? It’s like, so many things.
We could have wrote the questions.
Right, we could ... Well, I’m going to be asking Sheryl Sandberg those in a couple of days.
“Haven’t you committed involuntary treason?”
What’s that there? If you don’t put up any safeguards and you know these things are happening, and you refuse to put up those safeguards ... What have they said? There will always be bad actors. That’s basically acknowledging it’s going to happen again.
Right, which they did say.
Starbucks has an unfortunate incident at their stores, terrible, they close it down a day and they’ve gotten a lot of abuse for it. Do you think Facebook would close their platform for a minute?
I suggested they did.
For a minute?
For a minute. Now.
They won’t even refuse to take political ads.
Right, right, right. Oh, how did they not monitor political ads? I could go on and on. Like what happened between 2012 and ...
Let’s have our own hearings. I’m ready.
Yes, okay, we’re going to.
All right, next question: “It feels like telecom companies keep playing dirty in the sandbox.” I don’t know that ... “Seeing these companies play a major role in connecting customers in big tech, how will telecom affect the future of business?” Okay, the AT&T thing, this just happened this week.
I think they’re in trouble. The call by Trump to restrain — and it was Trump — to restrain the AT&T/Time Warner merger is ridiculous. The complaint there is its content and distribution is too powerful, so you have distribution of 130 million AT&T contracts and then you have content of Time Warner, HBO, CNN, Turner, great content. All right, so that’s powerful.
However, now let’s look at the content and distribution peanut butter and chocolate of Google. Two billion installed Android devices, the largest video network in the world — YouTube — but AT&T needs to sell Adult Swim?
Amazon has penetration in two-thirds of U.S. households with Amazon Prime. No cable company has anywhere like that. Second-largest spender, $5.5 billion in original content, but Time Warner has to sell the Cartoon Network? So one, two things is happening, it is a call to restrain AT&T acquiring Time Warner is ridiculous, but we should have broken these guys up 10 years ago.
So I think the telcos are applying defense for the first time right now. I think they’re back on their heels and I think they need to merge. Everybody’s bulking up because one of the few things you can do to push back is bulk up.
Right. They also entered into the Michael Cohen universe, which was astonishing.
It was a strange.
You couldn’t have batted a weirder ...
I mean it’s strange but ...
We have Randall Stevenson coming to Code in a couple of weeks.
I empathize with them, hate the game and not the player. Washington is pay to play, this happens to everyone. They didn’t realize this guy was such an undesirable. But if someone comes to you and says, “I ...
He looks like he was important, right?
He did. He looked at the time, when they hired him.
Well yeah, he was the personal attorney to Donald Trump so I can see how it happened.
And he got you up into Trump Tower.
I think it’s more of an indictment on the pay-to-play system we have. Quite frankly, I’m not sure AT&T did anything wrong, I think it was just bad judgment.
Did it have any impact on what’s going to happen here, good or bad? It could be good. It looks like they were.
I’ll turn it back to you. What do you think?
They apologized quickly and said, “This was a stupid ...”
I think they handled it well.
Yeah, they handled it well. I think this merger probably will go through.
Yeah, I think so too.
I think it will go through and I don’t think they’ll have to sell much of anything.
They’ll ask him to sell one or two things so they can say they did their job.
They can’t sell CNN. They can’t sell CNN.
That would seem too obvious. That would seem too much. They’ll sell some weird thing and they’ll come up with a reason for it and everyone will feel like they got what they wanted.
Right, but you’re 100 percent right about they need to bulk up.
What do you do?
They are literally ignoring four companies. It was really interesting to me, I was thinking about this the other day when we had Microsoft around and you were around, and I covered that trial too, it was one company that was doing everything. This is four or five of them, together and apart, that are doing it. That’s what makes it difficult.
At one point, someone asked Mark Zuckerberg in the hearings, “Do you have any competition?” He was like, “Senator, everybody.” But I was like, “Yeah you do, but you don’t.”
Well, and social didn’t invent ... it wasn’t around when Microsoft was around. There was software, but that was it.
Facebook has competition, but they have adjacent competition.
Do they really?
Do they really have competition?
No they don’t, that’s what I’m saying. So it literally is like a “Game of Thrones,” you’ve got Westeros, you’ve got this thing. But they’re all powerful in their own way, but they’re ... and just as bad as Microsoft was by itself individually.
They have social and they own apps, six of the top 10 apps. They dominate social. You think about it ...
Then you have Apple over here with their dominance, Amazon with their dominance.
Everybody’s got their sandbox and they’re bumping up against each other because they all feel that they’re the rightful heir to the throne. But they’re monopolies in their category.
Look at Facebook. If the four largest retailers, if Walmart, Krogers, Home Depot and CVS got together every morning and said, “We’re going to focus all our resources on putting No. 5, Target, out of business,” Target would go out of business. That’s what’s going on with Snap, Snap’s “The Walking Dead” because the four biggest players — Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp and Messenger — every morning meet and say, “How do we put these guys out of business?” That’s anti-competitive behavior.
I will ask that to Evan Spiegel who’s coming, but he’s so innovative and interesting. There’s only so much you can do, so many moves that count.
It’s a great company. Wish it would survive. It’s “The Walking Dead.”
Right, all right, I’ll tell him that you said that.
It will be acquired in the next 24 months.
All right. Travis Parker Martin asks, “In your book you say that a defining aspect of being in The Four is being liked by the public, which is why Uber won’t be a fifth anytime soon.” Maybe they are now. “Given the backlash against Facebook, how does it affect the medium- to long-term status as a tech giant and a likable tech giant?” I think likability is overrated, as you know.
I think this is probably highlighted that it’s not as important as I probably said in the book. Although, I think Sheryl Sandberg is infinitely likable. I think they were brilliant putting her out in front of Mark Zuckerberg. He’s not a likable guy. I just don’t think ... He’s just a little bit awkward.
He’s not dislikable.
Whereas I think she is inspiring and intelligent and a fantastic role model. I think they were smart to push her out front. I also think that these companies ...
Well, has she been hurt a little bit? A lot of people in Silicon Valley feel like she has. [They] initially pushed her out front.
Oh 100 percent, in my opinion. You know this better than I do, I don’t know her. I think she was planning on running for president and has basically shot herself in the foot because what she failed to realize is the public anoints leaders based on the risks they take, not the ones they avoid.
No, that’s a really good point.
I think both of them decided to retreat to the caves of Kandahar for a week. One of the keys to handling a crisis is that you immediately respond.
They’re really nice caves, just so you know.
Really nice caves.
They have fresh kombucha.
They said, “Well, we wanted to make sure we knew what was going on.” Well you come out right away and you say, “We don’t know what’s going on, but we’re going to come out here every day and tell you what we know.” Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is literally the textbook case study in literally how not to handle a crisis. They violated the pillars of crisis management.
Why do you think that happened?
You respond immediately, even if you don’t have enough information. You have the top guy or gal take responsibility and acknowledge the issue.
They were immediately, they were playing slow ball the whole way.
Yeah, it’s their thing, though.
You know that slow roll is Facebook.
Slow roll, slow ball, not acknowledging the issue. And then the key is to overcorrect, to clear the shelves of every bottle of Tylenol even though it was an isolated incident in Chicago. What do they do? What have they really done? What have the really done to address this issue? Okay, they’re catching up to what traditional media’s been doing for 30 years. You’re going to have to identify yourself is critical.
Dumped a bunch of tools, clear your browser.
And audit. But for the most part, does this event come anywhere close to an overcorrection? To a certain extent, it looks as if I’m wrong and they’re right because ...
It doesn’t matter, the stock is...
... look what happened to the stock. They crushed earnings.
But you were saying damage, scars, that maybe aren’t going to heal quite the way they want.
I think, short-term, Facebook is an incredible buy. We were talking about this: It trades at forward multiple of 20, S&P trades at 16, the S&P’s growing 6 percent, Facebook’s growing 49 percent. I would like to think in the medium- and long-term that dictators come to a bad end.
Or Gaddafi, or what’s going ... I should back up and say I’m not comparing Zuckerberg to either of those.
I just wanted to say “Ceausescu.”
That is a cool name.
They killed him and his wife.
His wife, yeah.
Probably they should have done it twice, as far as I’m concerned.
Hung him and then shot him.
That threw me off. Castro took over Cuba at 11 million people, we were freaked out. Zuckerberg oversees the content and influence and mood of a community greater than Christianity, the southern hemisphere, plus India. By the way, he’s going to be with us for 70 years. I think it’s frightening. By the way, I think he’s probably a good guy.
Pretty good guy.
But if you believe in the American system, the key to our system is checks and balances, and term limits.
He’s got none and he got none.
All right, Justin Fincher: “Are there some technologies that are launched slower than they could be due to probable public reaction? Example, self-driving 18-wheelers putting a bunch of drivers out of work. So tech comes over years instead of months?” So it should be launched slower. Should what they’re doing, like you’re saying, they’re going to be here for 70 years, but they’re going to keep launching their stuff.
That’s a thoughtful question I don’t have a good answer for. I wonder, there’s some technologies that are supposed to be changing the word — VR, 3-D printing, internet, are things that I think have been a huge head fix. I actually believe self-driving cars is one of those technologies that’s going to change the world ...
... but it’s going to be a terrible place to invest. If you look at the auto industry, it’s a low-margin, fairly competitive, efficient business. It hasn’t stuck its chin out the same way that the media ... The media business had it coming. It was purposely opaque. They didn’t tell you which happier advertising was being wasted. They stuck their chin our, which is wasteful. The auto industry, not so much. Daimler, Benz and Ford are capital-intensive efficient companies, so I think any company — whether it’s Apple or Google or some of the tech companies I’ve been speaking to — I think any effort to go into that industry is a shareholder-destroying move. I think it’s going to be great for us as citizens, Copenhagen’s going to go all driverless. It’s going to be fun in New York. But from a shareholder standpoint I would argue that the technology of self-driving cars is an example of a technology, along with virtual reality, that results in incredible destruction of shareholder value.
For these companies. Well look, Facebook’s deep into it.
VR or self-driving cars?
Yeah, but that’s just stupid. This again goes back to the notion that we anoint these people to be Jesus Christ of our generation and then he says virtual reality is going to unlock new worlds. Oh my God, Jesus Christ has identified a new technology. Everyone from Samsung to Kleiner Perkins, there’s hundreds of millions, of billions of dollars into VR without acknowledging one thing: No one is going to put something on their face that makes them look stupid. It makes them less likely to procreate. You look stupid wearing VR. You think about it, you’re wearing Ray Bans, I’m wearing Warby Parker, you just don’t put something on your face, much less your person, if it makes you look stupid.
Well, what’s interesting, I just did a really ... Carne y Arena, which Laurene Jobs is paying for, this artistic installation. It was a VR one, actually it was the first time I effectively thought it was an interesting thing, because I was in an art installation. It worked. They had a lot of physical things, you walked on dirt, you felt wind, and it put you in an immigration, a border, crossing the border. It actually was ... Wel,l you didn’t empathetically feel fear that these people do, but it was an effective use of it in an artistic sense.
IMAX is a fantastic experience and it’s worth about half a billion dollars. There will be niche applications, but it’s not going to be ...
Yeah, you’re right, but I was thinking as they were ...
Williams Sonoma is going to be worth more than all of VR.
They were putting it on my head and I said, “Not ready for primetime,” and I think the people weren’t paying attention. I was saying, “This is just ridiculous.” I should be able to put on a pair glasses and feel this. Or a drug.
The test is anytime you have something in the hallway of a conference, it means it’s a failed technology, right? Remember how many 3-D printers, you probably had one at [Code].
No, I hated 3-D printers.
But have you had VR metrics?
Yeah, we’ve had it, we’ve had it, yeah. We may have more.
We all lined up to play some weird game or feel like what it’s like to be on a roller coaster. It’s, “Wow, that’s amazing.” Would you buy one? No way.
I do see a glimpse of what it could be like, like surfing. I don’t ever want to surf a big wave in Hawaii but I’d like to feel what it was like. I could see...
Oh, you should surf. You should try.
I did. I took a surfing lesson, Scott, recently.
You should try. It’s fun.
I was fine.
Not too many sharks where you are, but it’s fun.
I get that, but I’m talking about an enormous wave that I would never do. So it would be cool to experience.
Yeah, once. Are you going to have one of these in your home?
Yes, exactly. That’s what I mean.
It’s just not ... It’s a head fake.
All right, okay.
Scott Siebold — we’ll take one more question before we get to the break — “I’d love to hear Scott Galloway talk about MoviePass and the brands of the future in the movie industry. Is MoviePass sustainable? Is it another Spotify, Uber, or Airbnb, etc.? Customer’s love the service, but it has to make up its margins in the B2B space and other business, particularly AMC, seem to hate it. Are there companies that have faced similar problems? How will it convince other brands to work with them?” MoviePass is obviously you get to watch as many movies as you want.
I think MoviePass is like Wayfair. I think the business model makes so sense and unless they get acquired and create ...
Explain Wayfair. It’s furniture.
Wayfair, the online furniture startup. Two-thirds of Williams Sonoma customers, Restoration customers, buy again within 12 months. Wayfair it’s one-third, so it doesn’t have nearly the loyalty. The amount of money they’re spending on TV advertising ... It’s pets.com. And so is jet.com, and jet.com got acquired by Walmart.
They’re playing a game of chicken and maybe they’ll win, but I would say MoviePass falls in that category. If you look at the economic model, it just doesn’t ... When the music stops, it’s going to be pretty ugly there. The CEOs ability to tell a story and raise a ton of capital to get out the other end and have a panicked old-economy movie theater chain buy them, maybe. He’s playing a dangerous game. He has a gun cocked and loaded at his head and it’s going off every few seconds until he gets acquired. I would say it’s about a two-thirds chance it gets acquired for below the cash that’s gone into the company or outright goes out of business.
But movie theaters are largely going away. They’re going to be a place where you go where what I’ll call teenagers and red states go to see these awful superhero films and then everybody else is going to find that their viewing experience at home is just superior.
Right, or even on your phone, which is interesting. I haven’t been in a movie theater in a long ... I used to go all the time.
Why would you? I’m scared going to movies. I realize how lame that makes me feel, but I go to movie theaters and I don’t enjoy the experience. There’s something called IPic, which is amazing, but generally speaking, the viewing experience at home ... I just watched this great new show off of ... I forget the network, called “The Terror” and it’s so well done. I keep discovering these new TV series.
Netflix has hundreds of them.
The key to happiness, working out after your relationships and more TV, Kara, more TV. When we look back on this era, on our age, we’ll identify that the defining art form of our age was television.
Yeah, it always has been for me.
Even back in the day, “All in the Family.”
Yeah, I was just thinking of that.
“Maude,” like go way back.
“Mary Tyler Moore.”
All of them, it always has been.
Movies have not been what’s changed my ... Movies are for my mom, for sure. She went down to the movie theater. You’re right, the experience ... If they don’t have a lie-back chair I ain’t going to a movie theater anymore.
Do they have an IPic in San Francisco?
Yeah, they got a lot of them. Of course we got it all and they have good food actually. Good food.
And they bring you alcohol.
They bring you alcohol.
Which is genius.
Yeah, I know. There’s one called Alamo Drafthouse. They’re obviously all around the country.
We’re going to take a quick break. So you think it’s done, MoviePass. What about the idea of it? What do you think of the idea of it?
Every boardroom in a consumer company needs to ask how to we overinvest, create an incredible value proposition, and convince the consumer to be monogamous with us and go into a recurring revenue relationship.
Every consumer company needs to be asking that. They’ve done it, but in order to get the share they initially want out of the box they’ve had to discount and create an economic model that just doesn’t work. It’s a right idea, recurring revenue, membership, not think about it, anything I want. I don’t have to do the trade-offs of how much, which movie I’m going to pay for. That’s where the world is headed, they’ve just not capitalized well enough to pull it off.
Right, and they’ve also antagonized the people they need to be partners with.
In the distribution of the theaters or the contact guys?
I think they’re pioneers and they’re going to end up with mud on their face and nails in their back.
Mm-hmm. But the idea?
Oh, makes all the sense in the world.
We’re moving to a small number of relationships that we pay a monthly fee for.
Like Amazon Prime.
I’m going to pay somebody. I’m on the board of Urban Outfitters and I hope it’s us. I think we’re in a position to have a group of very affluent and middle income, tasteful, professional females say, “Take my apparel decision-making off the table and handle it for me. Handle it and do a really good job and I’ll pay you $49.99, $299.99 a month.”
Yeah, “I’ll rent it and send it back.”
“I don’t want to make any decisions.”
The fancy stuff, “I don’t want to own it anymore.”
“I don’t like it,” easy to return.
The only thing you need are your jeans and your t-shirt, which is interesting, and everything else in and out.
“You get to know me, know what I like. Know that I have a weird-shaped body and just take the decision-making ... I never need to go into an apparel store again.” Buying a high-end bag or a Panerai watch, that’s fun. But 90 percent of our purchases are low-consideration ...
We’re going to move to a series of subscriptions.
Did I tell you about my recent experience with Stitch Fix? It was really interesting. I’ve been doing it because we’re having Katrina onstage at Code, and I’m not the demo, I’m way too old. But they would send me stuff and I’d send it back, I’d try on everything. It was interesting. I liked the concept kind of thing because I don’t like stores. Every time they get it wrong and then one time, this last time, I liked three things and I kept them. I actually bought them. I would have rather have rented them, but I kept them. I liked them. In the note from the stylist she said, “I finally figured it out. You’re androgynous and simple.”
She used the word androgynous?
That’s pretty ballsy.
I know, I was like, “Fuck you.” But then I was like, “and accurate.” So it was a really ...
Yeah, the truth hurts, right?
Well, I was like, “Okay, got it.” She got it. I thought, “Okay, she gets me.”
That was ... I think Stitch Fix is a head fake.
The core competence of Stitch Fix is the core competence of every specialty retail. You know what they have at Stitch Fix?
They have really good merchants. They send you pretty cool stuff. They call it AI so they can get traded in multiple of revenues. Be clear, they’re a great specialty retailer that have hired really talented merchants. Then their PR department called it AI.
All right then, on that, Scott, we’re going to take a quick break from a word from our sponsors and then we’ll get back with Scott Galloway.
Scott, can give me your best reading of the line #money? Just say #money in a very ...
No, in a way that people would want to buy.
Want to buy what? I don’t ...
Anything worth selling. I’m going to toss to an IBM ad in a second.
You’re going to toss me an IBM ad?
No, I’m not going to. I just want you to say #money in a very compelling way that would make people want to buy something.
All right forget it.
I don’t understand what ... I’m so confused.
I know, just stay right there.
We’re back with Scott Galloway, who’s my favorite pundit. Are you a pundit, Scott? You just have a lot of things to say.
Oh God, pundit, yeah.
We’re at the L2 studios. Scott is also a professor at NYU. We have some questions from our listeners about stuff you said on Recode Decode, which I said you’ve been a guest twice. This is the third time. The first time you were on the show you predicted Amazon would be the first company to be worth $1 trillion, but it turns out perhaps not.
Here’s the first question. Harvard Winters asks, “Will Professor Galloway finally admit Apple will get to $1 trillion in market cap first? If not, and how much will he bet me on Amazon?”
I’ll bet this individual a Prime membership that Amazon gets their first.
Oh wow. Why is that, Scott? Explain yourself.
Everywhere that Amazon bumps up against every other company, it’s winning, whether it’s in voice, whether it’s in streaming video, whether it’s even in hardware. They’re winning. In addition, when your investors allow you to reinvest 100 cents on the consumer dollar, whereas the other three only get to reinvest somewhere between 60 and 90 cents, you’re just going to win. You’re going to win. We’re going to see Amazon start to take share in market capitalization away from the other three. If you were going to write a sequel to the story it would be “The One Who Would Be Amazon.”
The one, oh, as in there can be only one?
It feels to me like the very closest to the iron throne is in fact Amazon right now.
I was actually referring to a much better movie, which is “Highlander,” but anyway.
Do you watch “Outlander”? The one with ...
Oh, “Outlander,” yes. I do. But “Highlander” was a movie, you’ve got to go back and watch, it was back in the day.
But that was the guy from Tarzan.
Yeah, the Tarzan guy. “There can be only one,” and it was him.
Yeah, and they cut their heads off.
Yeah, exactly. Then lightning came out of their heads.
All right, so Amazon before Apple, because everyone’s sort of on this Apple watch.
Well, okay, because Apple’s closest. Apple’s at about 930. And if you wanted to be snarky you would say Apple’s already at a trillion because they overturned $100 billion to shareholders this year. So if they maintain $900 billion they’re already at $1 trillion. Apple’s an amazing company, but no one has the momentum of Amazon, so I’m sticking to my guns with Amazon.
Then what does that mean, being a $1 trillion company? What is that from a ...
Almost nothing, except we’ll obsess over it because it’s a psychological barrier.
All right, here’s another question about Amazon that was tweeted to us by New York’s Spicebo, or something like that, “Do you feel like your predictions make Amazon suffer from the Hawthorne Effect?” My producer did some extensive Googling and found the Hawthorne Effect refers to individuals altering their behavior and response to being observed. That’s Schrodinger’s Cat, right? One example is that employees at a company working harder because they know the boss is watching. So is Amazon changing how its business runs because of you, Scott? Yes.
I hate smart questions. Absolutely no. I’m not even a gnat on the windshield for Amazon.
He might be paying attention.
I don’t think in any way. I don’t think in any way they find me threatening or influencing ... Although, supposedly I’ve gotten calls from all of them. They all say the same thing: “Come out and meet with us. We want to update you on our thinking.” They all kind of say the same various thing.
Yeah they do it to me too.
But you’re a journalist. You have an obligation to be with them. I don’t want to be with them because I know what’s going to happen. I’m going to meet them. I’m going to like them and I’m going to stop speaking my mind.
Oh that’s a good point.
So I’ve said, “I’m not going to meet with you.” One of them ...
You can’t be mean to people you like? Well, I’m really good at that.
I have a difficult time. You’re much more fair, and my emotions get in the way.
I was meeting with an internet person and they’re like, “I’m so glad we’ve become friends.” I’m like, “We’re not friends.”
“We’re not friends.”
I said it out loud and they’re like, “What?”
“Don’t kid yourself.”
I said, “I’m here because I want information from you.” They’re like ...
“And you should be wary of that.”
Yeah I was like, “Sorry.”
“No, we’re not friends.”
“You need to get better friends.”
But one of them called me back and was actually quite aggressive and said, “You have an obligation to meet with us because you’re out in the public talking about us and saying damaging things.” I said, “I’m not a journalist. I don’t have any obligation.”
But they go crazy. Yeah, they go crazy when you say damaging things. I said one thing on CNBC, Amazon was on the phone to me seconds later. I was sort of like, “Whoa, that was so fast.”
But you’re a journalist. I think you’re held to a higher standard. I think in America ...
It was a minor thing I said. I said something, I’m making a joke.
But also, you carry more weight than me. They see me as harmless professor hanging out with a Labrador and a sweater, in a cardigan, smoking a pipe.
Oh I don’t think so. I don’t think so. So you’re not going to visit them?
I don’t want to know them.
You don’t want to see some of their warehouses? They’re pretty cool.
I would absolutely go see the warehouses. I think that would be awesome.
Go see the warehouses.
And see how nobody’s in them and that the future of work doesn’t involve people.
There’s people there, but you should see them. I’d love to know what you think. If there’s one ...
No one’s invited me to the warehouses. I don’t get invited to that stuff.
Go to the warehouse. They even let me take pictures. I’ll send you pictures.
Yeah, yeah. It’s cool. If you ...
So next time ask, “Can I bring my buddy Scott?”
Yes, I will.
I would love to see an Amazon warehouse.
All right, we’re going to Seattle. We’re going to go see ...
That’s a place I would go.
There was one in Kent, I think, Washington, which is right near Seattle headquarters.
But I went to a fundraiser of a representative who was running for Senate in Nevada yesterday. I didn’t realize it, but it was being held at one of these companies. I walked in, I was immediately self-conscious. I didn’t order coffee there at their coffee bar. I felt like I was going to slip and break a hip. You feel so old at these places. I felt as if I just needed to get out of there, that I was intruding. I didn’t want to eat their food because ...
You just wanted to observe them from afar. You’re like the Margaret Mead of ...
It’s just easier.
Yeah it is, you’re right.
Yeah, although I certainly can meet them and be just as unpleasant later.
Yeah, but you’re a journalist and you have a level of rigor and a level of fairness, and these people know you. I think it’s much more interesting to be ...
This is just your observations. These are just your intelligent observations.
Two questions from Gaurav Bhati: “What is the biggest problem for Apple today other than the usual generic problems throughout the Valley of diversity, harassment” — Other than those, Mrs. Lincoln.
Other than those.
“Unequal gender pay and lack of privacy?
“2. Which big tech company has the least embarrassing public perception when it comes to AI taking away people’s jobs and why?” So first one, Apple.
So two questions, biggest threat to Apple is the biggest threat to every company in America right now, and that’s Amazon.
Mm-hmm, all right.
The most innovative, disruptive piece of hardware in the history of mankind was the iPhone and it’s passing the baton unwittingly to Amazon’s Echo.
Amazon is their biggest threat. I think that in terms of who is sort of the least damaged, it’s actually, you’re involved in this, it’s absolutely now Apple and it’s because of the interview Tim Cook did with you.
Tell me more.
Let me be clear. I still think he’s largely full of shit.
This is an interview I did in Chicago with Tim.
Yeah, on MSNBC and with the guy ...
Yep, it was an hour. And Chris Yates.
With Chris. But, quite frankly, he came across as the adult in the room.
Right, he did. He is an adult, so that was easy.
He’s a thoughtful guy. They saw an opening strategically to put their finger in the wound of privacy for the other guys and he talks about it as a human right. He’s super likable. You get the sense he really believes what he’s saying. They’re well positioned because they’ve gone the other way to say, “We don’t even want your data.” So to a certain extent, Apple has brilliantly taken advantage of the situation and starched their hat white.
Mm-hmm, yeah, they did.
Now, are they largest tax avoider in the history of corporate America? Yeah. Is it easy for them to talk about data and privacy when they’re not in that building? Yeah. Is taking the iPad away from my 7 year old tantamount to taking a crack pipe away from a crack addict? Literally. You have boys, right?
Yep. They love their iPhones.
You literally register this emotion. So we let our kids on screens ... When you first have kids ...
They think it’s murder if you take them away.
They look like at you like, “Memo to self: Must kill father.”
Something strange is going on in the human brain there. So if all of a sudden Tim Cook’s very concerned about privacy, I would love it if Mark Zuckerberg all of a sudden became very concerned with the young male brain and iPads and iPhones.
Yeah, yeah, maybe he will. He was trying very hard to defend himself.
I think he’s scared. I don’t think he wants to ...
He did a mistake. What my favorite thing was, his argument is iPhones are expensive. I was like, “News flash, you’re kidding, nobody knew that.”
That was their argument.
They’re a lot a money?
It’s for rich people. It’s for rich people.
He should stay out of anyone’s ...
That was a mistake.
Anyone who takes on Tim Cook is going to get the shit kicked out of him because he’s likable, smart.
And he’s correct.
The exact response there should have been, “I’m going to take this to heart, because I think Tim Cook is a leader and incredibly smart.”
Exactly. That’s exactly what I thought.
That’s what he should have said.
Well, what was amazing was that he answered a question, it was the sell things to rich people. I was like, “We know that.” We’re not mad.
Yeah, we figured that out.
We’re not mad at Apple about that.
Yeah, Facebook sells advertising to rich companies. We’re all trying to sell things to the rich people.
Yeah, it was funny.
#money, well done.
They were indignant that Apple sells things that are expensive. That was ridiculous for Mark to say.
Yeah, sell stuff.
The second thing was, if you looked at the notes they had at the hearing, there was a tiny little bunch of little things that he had to do for privacy. The Apple section was enormous. They were so mad about that. It really got their goat.
I think they all hate each other.
Yeah, he got their goat.
I think when you get to that point it’s like being a partner at Goldman Sachs. You look around the partner meetings and everybody wakes up in the morning and looks in the mirror, and says, “Hello, Mr. CEO.” They all believe ... Every senator wakes up in the morning and says ...
“Hello, Mr. President.”
“Hello, Mrs. President.” So they all start to hate each other. They all feel that they’re the rightful heir to the throne.
Yeah, which is interesting. I think Tim has longer game. I don’t feel like he ...
He seems more thoughtful. He’s faced, probably, more adversity. I have this theory that ...
I don’t think he gives a fuck. That’s what I think. He’s like, “I’m ...”
You and I are the same age. This is the wonderful thing that happens. You realize you’ve got 10 more Christmases with your 7 year old, maybe you’ve got 30 more here on the planet, and you start speaking your mind and thinking a little bit more about the future. A 33 year old ... I’m convinced that white kids from affluent families are less empathetic and make less ... That sounds racist. Kids from privilege who have never had to overcome any sort of adversity, unlike immigrants, unlike people who maybe grew up with some form of discrimination, I think they’re the scariest CEOs because I think their attitude is they don’t ...
Yeah, I agree. They don’t even think about it.
I am a competitor. Sign, or join, or die.
Oh, you’re being abused on Twitter, what?
I made it, why shouldn’t you? I don’t think they have the same level of empathy and what I’ll call self-awareness.
I was at an event with Samantha Bee last night that she was doing. I was making the point that the Harvey Weinstein stories were written by women and a gay man, that’s who wrote them. There was a reason for that. They had empathy or had suffered some sort of ... They understand much better. Everybody knew about that and didn’t get it. It was interesting. That’s where a lot of the action is coming from.
All right, we’ve got to get through these. “Which big tech companies have the least embarrassing public relations problem?”
Apple, okay. You’re absolutely right. The rest of them have ... Elon Musk is sort of on the other side of that.
Oh, he blew it, though. It sucks to be a grownup. He had his Enron moment. Remember the CEO of Enron called an analyst an asshole then six months later he was in jail? When Elon Musk said that, the analyst quit.
Everyone has a boss.
Tell all. He’s not going to like this, but go ahead.
Look, everybody has a boss. When you decide to go public and the marketplace gives you a multiple of revenues on an auto company that should be trading in a multiple of Ebitda, which you have none, yeah, it sucks to be a grownup. You take people’s questions and you humor them. You don’t say, “Oh, these questions are boring,” and then let a fanboy ask you questions for six minutes and call these people boring. That was a very ... I think the right thing happened there.
That’s when the chairman of the company ... Oh, unfortunately Elon’s [also] the chairman, but maybe someone else on the board, maybe his brother who’s also on the board can sit him down. That’s when a good board member calls and says, “Look buddy, get your shit together. If you’re going to take their money and you’re going to get an incredibly cheap source of capital, which we are using to fulfill your mission to put men on Mars, then you have to put up with questions like this.” There was an immaturity tax placed on Tesla shareholders of $3 billion. They lost $3 billion that day after announcing good numbers.
An immaturity tax?
You don’t get on an earnings call and say these are stupid boring questions when analysts are asking you about liquidity.
Well isn’t that the Elon thing to do?
This firm it has a liquidity issue.
That could take the stock ... I’ve said I think Tesla could run the risk of declining 30-50 percent this year because they could end up in a liquidity crunch at the end of the year. He’s staked a claim now that they don’t need to raise additional capital, they should have done it last year.
Why is he doing it, do you think?
Why is he doing ...
What he did?
I think a guy like that who’s the Thomas Edison of our generation has been told that over and over. You get to a point where you’re ... Why am I occasionally rude to an Uber driver? I’m not proud of that, but you get used to a certain level of expectation around thinking you’re important. You anchor off the best service you’ve ever had and you find yourself being rude, recognizing it sucks to be a grownup and you need to be more empathetic. When you’re the CEO of a company, you sign up to put up with a lot of bullshit from investors.
No, I had Jason Calacanis, who knows him very well — I haven’t talked to him because we’ve had a back and forth on something — but he was saying he sets these enormous goals and then he’s frustrated when people ... The goals are much more interesting than other people’s goals, right? Going to Mars, doing the cars. They are, they’re more ambitious.
Oh it’s every 8-year-old boy’s dream.
So if he gets to 70 percent and you still say why didn’t you get the other ... He gets annoyed by that. He’s setting these ridiculous goals to start with and so he doesn’t want your guff, essentially.
You have to thread a fine needle to be an effective CEO, and that is, you have to be a megalomaniac that has your ego in check. You have to believe you’re capable of accomplishing these extraordinary things. What is the core competencies, guys? They’re too stupid and crazy to know they’re going to fail, but in order to have that kind of megalomania at the same time you also have to keep it in check and have a certain amount of empathy and a certain amount of humility. That is very hard to find in one body.
He strikes me as very savvy.
He never gets offended. He gets offended himself, but he never shows it. It’s fascinating.
Never shows anger, always quick to laugh.
I’ve seen it twice and I was surprised by it.
Supposedly if you work for him you see it a lot.
Yes you do. He got mad at me about something years ago and he’s still mad at me, now that I think about it.
He’s still angry?
I think so, it’s like 15 years ago.
But he lets you into his warehouses.
Maybe he doesn’t know I’m there. I don’t know.
I bet he knows everything.
We talked a lot and he got mad. I think he’s still mad. It was a thing about end caps.
#forgiveness, Jeff, if you’re listening.
No, I feel it because we used to talk quite a bit.
Okay, “Too Embarrassed, I’ve read Professor Galloway critiques CEOs like Zuckerberg and Bezos for business decisions that are arguably unethical. I understand that some part of that is branding. People need to like you to buy your stuff, but do companies have ethical responsibilities?” This is a really great question. “Civic ones? For example, I live in Seattle and we have a huge homeless problem and Amazon stopped construction of a new building in protest of a head tax to help a homeless population arguably displaced by Amazon’s growth.” Same thing with the Rooney Rules, they finally went in to them. So do they have ethical responsibilities, civic ones?
I’ll take my building and go home. Yeah, they do, but I’m a bit cynical. I think in a capitalist society the for-profit enterprise is their first and foremost great economic security for shareholders and employees. I think that’s what they need to be focused on. Being a good citizen is good business, but at the end of the day the externalities that are caused by unfettered growth, it’s our responsibility to take the 23 percent of GDP we allocate to government and hold government accountable and ensure that they do behave ethically.
Will government do that?
Well, I actually think government’s underrated in terms, for the most part.
They have the ability to do it.
They have the ability, and they’ve done a pretty good job.
We have figured out we do have emissions standards in California.
We’ll see, right?
We do have standards. Regulation does work. Maybe it’s inefficient, maybe it’s expensive. I think the ethical responsibility is on behalf of the citizenry. I think we’re the ones that are failing.
I agree with you 100 percent.
It’s our job, right?
But it’s our job to bother them to do it. To make them ...
And hold them accountable.
And make them feel guilty about it. I think it does have an impact if you keep saying, “You have a responsibility. What are you doing?” It gets in there.
I’ll give you an example, and I’m nervous saying this. I bought Facebook stock the day before the earnings because I think, and that’s hypocritical, because I’m very critical of Facebook, I think young people or old people, switch them out, I think we have an obligation to create economic security for us and our families. Then to use that economic security to create fantastic, secure households to raise thoughtful, considerate, empathetic children.
I also think we have a responsibility to elect officials — as I want to do and am fighting to do — and I’m willing to spend some money on to put in a place elected representatives that will hold these companies accountable.
The notion that this revolution is going to be consumer-led, no way. I don’t think we should expect ... Consumers at the end of the day want their little black dress for $9.99, full stop. We talk a big game. Everybody talks about how young students, they come talk to me, are more mission-drive now, are more socially conscious. I just think that’s such bullshit.
Well, it’s interesting. I think one of the things someone told me, consumers, they were talking about Facebook or one of them and said, “Consumers don’t care,” to me. I said, “I don’t care if they don’t care. We’re just going to do it anyway.” We’re going to just regulate them anyway. It doesn’t matter if we care.
That’s the point.
It shouldn’t be the criteria.
There is a huge marketplace for consumers who will fly for $49 with one pilot and poor safety maintenance, but we’ve decided no. We’re going to regulate. We’re going to create something called the FAA and even though there’s a large consumer base that would take ...
Yeah, take the cheaper.
... the near-infinitely small risk, but take bigger risks, we’ve decided that we’re going to regulate things. We step in.
It’s sort of like your kids and sugar, they would eat sugar all day.
They would do it. It’s our job. It’s our job.
They’re always saying this to me, “There’s not a business.” I said, “We’re just going to do it anyway. We’re just going to go for it.”
But I also think the business reason, they haven’t done anything wrong. I don’t think we’re punishing them. If you look at where we are in the economic cycle, I think we could unleash another 20-30 years of unbelievable innovation and shareholder growth by breaking these guys up. I think we need to oxygenate the system.
Breaking up ... Okay, we’ll finish that in a second, but one more question, “Ask him about the future of AI and machine learning, how it affects jobs.” That’s why it’s going to get broken, because these jobs impact ... Do you think that’s the most important thing?
I think it’s the scariest thing. I spoke after Jeff Bezos at the Alternative Investments Conference hosted by J.P. Morgan last year in Miami. He was a fan of universal guaranteed income — which I found terrifying — that the most intelligent, forward-looking business person in the world is basically seeing the future of business and it doesn’t involve humans. What they fail to realize, they think they’re being charitable.
Very important point you just made.
They think they’re being charitable about keeping people at home. I get my identity through two things, being a good dad and my work. The idea that I would be paid to stay home because I was no longer viable in the workplace, to me would be incredibly emasculating, take my dignity. Part of the American experience is we’re philanthropic, we’re innovative, and you know what, we work.
My feeling is that Jeff Bezos is really frightening. I would say to him, “Show some real fucking vision. Figure out a future that involves a lot of jobs.”
Mm-hmm, and what those jobs would be, Scott. Why should humans mine coal, it’s ridiculous, it’s dangerous.
Oh, get rid of the dirty jobs, but I think there’s a lot of fantastic opportunities, I’d like to think, for more work. The jobs are out there, we just don’t seem to be willing to invest in the training, apprenticeships, education.
So who, again, is responsible? Is it these companies? Jeff Bezos should be thinking about it. I agree with you.
Well, I think a guy like that, when you’re the wealthiest man in the world, I do think you take on a different level of responsibility. Arguably speaking, if wealth equals power, he’s the most powerful person in the world. So with great power comes great responsibility.
Yeah, I think it goes back to government. I think we need to spend more money. Look, we make these decisions. People immediately digress to “this is the world we live in.” No it’s not. The world is what we make of it.
Right. Oh Scott, you should run for office.
Yeah, there you go. I’ll support you. I’ll write you a check and let you hear all the bad things about you come out of the closet.
Come on Scott.
In New York, when my son was speech delayed, the government showed up with a bunch of people to help my kid start to speak and it’s a wonderful thing. We have Pre-K funding for kids. We’re going to have more secure kids. What your governor is doing in California is he’s being responsible and reallocating capital ...
Yeah, we’re going to miss Jerry Brown.
I think he’s been fantastic.
We’re going to miss Jerry Brown.
Government and society, the fabric that brings us all together, has an incredible obligation and opportunity. We have the money.
So it’s not the federal government at this moment.
I don’t think so. We’re getting off topic here, but when you spend two-thirds of your money further enriching the wealthiest generation in history — of baby boomers — I think we’ve kind of become ...
Yeah, lost the story.
Lost the script here.
Right, okay. All right, Scott, any other prediction you want to make before we end?
Any other prediction?
I think Tesla’s value declines by 30-50 percent. Facebook’s going to be over $200 in the next 90 days and $250 by the end of the year. Amazon is going to be our first $1 trillion company. Spotify is going to double in value in the next 24 months.
Double in value, okay.
They could be the fifth horseman. They tap into instinct.
I would agree with you.
Music is really important in terms of storytelling, emotion.
Snap’s going to be acquired. It will be picked up as somebody ...
What do you think? The obvious one is Google, but I don’t know. What do you think? Who do you think acquires Snap? You think Amazon does?
Either one of the guys.
I’d truly think of who he would sell to. He’s a very particular young man.
Well, and he controls the company. There’s an example, right? A 27 year old who controls what teenagers see in terms of content, who can’t be removed from office.
He wants someone with taste. He has a lot of taste, I got to say.
He’s a design guy, right?
More than that. Whenever I talk to him I always learn something.
Well, here’s a question for you, which of the four has the best taste? Who would you argue has the best taste?
Of these four companies?
Yeah. Who would he want to most sell to? If you’re Evan Spiegel, who would he most want to sell to?
Well, it’s different. Apple has the most taste, but I don’t think he’d get on. It’s an older cohort of guys there. Amazon.
I think he’d be most challenged by Jeff Bezos. Google no.
See, I think for me, Jeff Bezos, Evan Spiegel, and throwing Zac Efron in South Beach would just slay it. I think we would have such a good time.
It sounds like a buddy movie.
So you know these guys?
That sounds like a buddy movie on a ...
I’m ready. I’m in.
Okay, all right, Scott. I’ll tell them.
I’ll pay. I just got a new Discover card. #money.
All right, thank you. Once again, Scott, this is another great episode of Too Embarrassed, another great episode with Scott Galloway. Thanks for joining him on the show. You’re going to see more of me and Scott Galloway soon, hopefully, in lots of different things.
This article originally appeared on Recode.net.